The Paris Court of Appeals and the Overruling of Truth

For the French legal system, the facts of what happened at Netzarim were and are essentially irrelevant. This case was not about getting at the truth, but about protecting the honor of French institutions. The al-Dura hoax remains an icon of journalistic deception. It is a pity this now has the imprimatur of the French judicial system.

Elihu D. Stone..
Times of Israel..
26 June '13..

This week the Paris Court of Appeals disgraced itself and revealed the dark side of France’s arcane laws of defamation, elevating the principle of French honor above the value of truth-telling for French journalists. The appellate court’s sentencing of Philippe Karsenty to a fine of 7,000 Euros for the “crime” of speaking truth to power telegraphs how France has decided to treat whistle-blowers who have the temerity to demand that state-sponsored media outlets differentiate between theater and news. Perhaps this second panel of the appellate court was not entirely at fault for its misstep. It operated with blinders, since the French Supreme Court forbade it from viewing the relevant evidence that led the first panel of the court to acquit Karsenty. For the French legal system, the facts of what happened at Netzarim were and are essentially irrelevant. This case was not about getting at the truth, but about protecting the honor of French institutions.

The al-Dura hoax remains an icon of journalistic deception. It is a pity this now has the imprimatur of the French judicial system.

On September 30, 2000, upon the launch of the second Intifada, the France 2 TV network broadcast approximately a minute’s truncated footage of an episode shot by its Palestinian stringer, Talal Abu Rahma, at Netzarim Junction in Gaza. Abu Rahma was the only photojournalist of dozens filming at Netzarim that day to record the incident. Charles Enderlin, France 2′s Jerusalem correspondent, who did not witness the scene, narrated the broadcast footage, based chiefly on Abu Rahma’s say-so alleging that 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura and his father Jamal were the target of fire from the Israeli position as they took cover behind a barrel near a wall at the Junction. In later interviews, Abu Rahma and Enderlin reaffirmed and embellished their allegations, indicting Israeli soldiers for slaying Mohammed and grievously wounding his father, firing “hundreds of bullets” over a period of 45 minutes at the al-Duras.

The broadcast footage raised myriad questions – but France 2, Enderlin and Abu Rahma continued to promote their story despite the mounting inconsistencies surfacing in years subsequent. Here are just some questions remaining unanswered:

The al-Dura blood libel continues

...The al-Dura myth is significant not so much because it annoys Israelis and their friends but because it reinforces the way Palestinians think of themselves and gives them carte blanche to commit any outrage. Debunking it is not pointless.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary..
26 June '13..

Today (Wednesday) a ruling by a French court confirmed, after years of legal wrangling, that a French media critic was guilty of libeling a journalist who was largely responsible for turning a Palestinian child into a martyr for opponents of Israel. France 2, the television channel that employed Charles Enderlin, the reporter that first told the story of al-Dura, is representing the conviction of Phillipe Karsenty as a victory for French journalism. Karsenty was first convicted of libeling Enderlin in 2006 for saying he had fabricated parts of the original story. That verdict was reversed on appeal in 2008, but that ruling was overturned by France’s highest court last year allowing a lower court to fine Karsenty 8,000 euros.

Those who cling to the claim that the iconic image of the boy dying in his father’s arms after being killed by Israeli gunfire was accurate will take this as a vindication of their cause. Even some who call themselves friends of Israel will hope this will put an end to the ongoing discussion about al-Dura, which they claim is a distraction from the need to seek peace with the Palestinians. But Karsenty, who rightly called the final verdict “outrageous,” isn’t going to shut up. And, since the Israeli government has endorsed his account, neither should anyone else who cares about Israel. As I wrote at length about this story last month, the al-Dura blood libel still matters because the demonization of Israel that Enderlin’s fakery helped reinforce is at the heart of the conflict with the Palestinians.

Critics of Karsenty and the Israeli government claim that those who point out that al-Dura wasn’t shot by Israeli fire and perhaps was not even killed that fateful day at the start of the second intifada are fighting a losing battle whose only purpose is to evade the necessity of putting away old grudges. But this formulation has it backwards. It is the willingness of the Palestinians to cling to their blood libels against Israel and to concoct endless variations on them as they seek to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state that continue to fuel the conflict.

‘A Dark Day for French Democracy and a Dark Day for the Truth’

...“I see that some people on the other side are very happy because they are saying it is a day of honor for journalism. It is a day of shame for journalism, and I think it is a day of shame for French democracy which is covering up from the bottom, to each and every level a blood libel,” he said.

Algemeiner Staff..
26 June '13..

Shortly after a French court found him guilty of defamation over his work to expose the now infamous al-Dura hoax, Phillipe Karsenty spoke to The Algemeiner and shared his reaction to the verdict.

“I am very disappointed because I thought that there was a chance that the justice system would find me not guilty of defamation,” he said. “I don’t have the verdict, the written verdict, the argument of the judges, but the verdict was postponed twice so they only found me guilty on the third time,” he said, implying that there is more at play in the case than meets the eye.

Karsenty publicly accused state television network France 2 of falsely depicting the death of a young Palestinian boy, Mohammed al-Dura, in a firefight between Palestinian gunmen and Israeli soldiers. The start of the Second Intifada in which over 1000 Israelis were killed, was largely attributed to the video, which was broadcast September 30, 2000 and circulated throughout the world.

“I think it is a dark day for French democracy and I think it is a dark day for the truth,” Karsenty declared of the verdict, adding optimistically, “and the truth will prevail in the end, I don’t know when, I don’t know how, but I know that it will prevail.”

Karsenty sharply criticized the French justice system and those that participated in what he calls the “covering up” of a “blood libel.”

“I see that some people on the other side are very happy because they are saying it is a day of honor for journalism. It is a day of shame for journalism, and I think it is a day of shame for French democracy which is covering up from the bottom, to each and every level a blood libel,” he said.

“All the journalists aligned behind Enderlin,” he said of Charles Enderlin, the France 2 Jerusalem bureau chief, whom he accused of fabricating parts of the segment, “Sarkozy granted him the Legion of Honor.”

Karsenty came across as disappointed but also hopeful, and said that his work on the case was not over.

“I don’t see where the light comes from,” he continued “but if I would say something I would say ‘gam zu letovah’ (also this is for the best.)”

The Al-Dura Affair and Its Enablers, J'Accuse!

Emmanuel Navon..
For the Sake of Zion..
04 June '13..

Emile Zola’s open letter published on the front page of L’Aurore on 13 January 1898 has become the epitomic expression for denouncing State lies. This expression fits perfectly to denounce the French Republic for sacrificing truth in the name of raison d’État in the Al-Dura Affair. In February 2004, French President Jacques Chirac sent a letter to Charles Enderlin, the author of the Al-Dura report, praising his faithfulness to truth. In 2008, French journalists published an open letter to express their support for Charles Enderlin. In 2009, President Sarkozy granted Enderlin the légion d’honneur, France’s highest decoration. The French State has behaved in the Al-Dura Affair the way it behaved in the Dreyfus Affair –except for the fact that in the Dreyfus Affair, the State eventually admitted that it had orchestrated a lie. And during the Dreyfus Affair, many French “intellectuels” (the word was coined at the time) took personal risks in the name of truth. In the Al-Dura Affair, by contrast, most French journalists and public figures have circled the wagons around Enderlin.

The behavior of the French establishment in the Al-Dura affair is shameful, but not surprising. What is surprising is the fact that the Israeli establishment also circled the wagons around Enderlin.

The “Affair” started on September 30, 2000, when French state television France 2 broadcast images showing a boy and his father (Mohammad and Jamal Al-Dura) supposedly caught in gunfire between the IDF and PA forces at Gaza’s Netzarim junction. France 2’s Israel correspondent Charles Enderlin did not personally witness the incident but he claimed, while commenting the images filmed by his Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu-Rahmah, that the boy had been intentionally killed by Israeli bullets. Enderlin’s words were that the boy and his father were the target (“la cible” in French) of the IDF. The message was clear: the IDF had intentionally killed a helpless Palestinian child (Enderlin later claimed that he hadn’t meant that Israel intentionally killed the child, but that is nevertheless what could unmistakably be understood from his words).

In 2004, France 2 sued French politician and media analyst Philippe Karsenty for claiming that Enderlin’s report was a forgery. In 2008, the Paris Appellate Court acquitted Karsenty of defamation, concluding that the defendant had grounds for questioning the authenticity of Enderlin’s report. France 2 appealed to France’s highest court, and a final verdict is expected next month.

The images broadcast by France 2 and Enderlin’s claim had a devastating effect. They inflamed the “Second Intifada” as well as anti-Israel demonstrations around the world. Horrendous crimes such as the lynching of Israeli soldiers in Ramallah in October 2000 or the beheading of Daniel Pearl in February 2002 were justified by their perpetuators as a revenge for Mohammad Al-Dura’s death.

And yet, Mohammad Al-Dura could not possibly have been killed by Israeli bullets. Worse, there is strong evidence that the whole scene might have been staged in the first place. Which means that Charles Enderlin and France 2 are responsible for a blood libel that caused the death of hundreds of Jews and that had devastating consequences on Israel’s international image.

The al-Dura case - Why was the IDF abandoned?

Fresnozionism.org..
21 May '13..

Thirteen years after Israel’s enemies unleashed one of the most damaging fake atrocity stories in military history, the Israeli government has come up with an official report [1.8 mb pdf] to refute the September 30, 2000 France 2 news broadcast, narrated by respected correspondent Charles Enderlin, that claimed to show 12-year old Mohammad Dura shot dead by IDF soldiers.

Oh, we already know and knew almost immediately beyond a reasonable doubt that al-Dura was not shot by the IDF, and we almost certainly know that he was not shot at all, by anybody. Persuasive evidence (more persuasive than the official report) is here.

In fact, we can say with confidence that the incident was a fake, set up by France 2′s Palestinian cameraman and local Gaza residents.

But what is difficult to understand is the Israeli diffidence in the face of the vicious allegations.

The immediate response of the IDF was to temporize. From the official report:

On that same day, following the France 2 report, the Spokesperson Unit released a statement which made clear that while it was not possible to determine, based on the footage broadcast by the network, the source of the shots apparently fired at Jamal and the boy, ultimate responsibility lay with the Palestinians for cynically launching armed attacks from within the civilian population. …

But then, at a press conference on October 3, it turned disastrous:

[Maj. Gen. Giora] Eiland, in response to a question regarding Al-Durrah, answered that as a result of the gunfire at the junction, Jamal and the boy “took cover next to a wall, several meters from where Palestinians fired at us. The soldiers returned fire and apparently the boy was hit by our fire.”

Eiland later explained,

I had not seen all the evidence made available to the Israeli army only later…Given the long history of Palestinians exposing their children to danger, I assumed that the main issue in this case would be the question: Why would the Palestinians have exposed their own civilians to danger by firing on the Israelis while a boy and his father were in the crossfire? I did not realize that my words would be used to accuse Israel of cold-blooded murder.

The footage was played and replayed around the world. Two weeks later, two IDF reservists were torn to pieces in Ramallah to shouts of “al-Dura! al-Dura!” The alleged cold-blooded murder became the symbol of the Intifada, and an inspiration for suicide bombers. Daniel Pearl’s murderers and even Osama bin Laden, before and after 9/11, invoked it as justification for their acts.

Meanwhile IDF Maj. Gen. Yom Tov Samia, OC Southern Command, reenacted the incident, examined the relative locations of soldiers and Palestinians, and concluded that IDF bullets could not have hit al-Dura. This was announced at a press conference on November 27, which was almost entirely ignored by the media — and by top officers and Israel politicians. Indeed, the IDF Chief of Staff, Shaul Mofaz, told the Knesset that the investigation was a “private initiative of Samia,” not part of an official investigation.

Why didn’t Mofaz and his boss, Ehud Barak, who was serving as both Prime Minister and Minister of Defense at the time, take up the cause of the IDF and demand, with the maximum possible diplomatic force, that all information related to the incident — including all the footage shot by France 2 on that day — be placed at Israel’s disposal to do a proper investigation?

Why I Won’t Sue You - Esther Schapira’s Open Letter to Charles Enderlin

Esther Schapira..
pjmedia.com..
22 February '13..





(Esther Schapira is a German journalist who works for German public TV. She has produced two documentaries on the al-Dura fraud. At the special request of Philippe Karsenty, she testified at his appellate trial against Charles Enderlin and France 2 on January 16th, 2013. A French-language version of this letter has been read widely in Europe. Schapira has presented PJ Media with a translation.)

——————————————-

Why I Won’t Sue You

Before this story brought us together, your name didn’t mean anything to me — like to the rest of the world outside France — and if I could have chosen, it would have stayed like that. After we first met in 2001 I just thought of you as a man with bad behavior, an old bully. Back then I had contacted you because we were filming a documentary on Mohammed Al-Dura, which aired in 2002. I thought I would get support from you as a colleague working for a company which is closely linked to ARD, our television network in Germany. Instead, you threatened to sue me should I dare to accuse you or your company of having lied or fabricated anything. This came as a real surprise to me, because I hadn’t said anything like this, and I had no suspicions up until that moment.

This was more than 10 years ago, and we both have grown older, as I could see when we met again in a courtroom in Paris. You as the plaintiff, I as a witness. It was our fourth encounter, and each time it got worse. The older you get, it seems, the more stubborn you are. It was always unpleasant, so I preferred to avoid any contact. Quite frankly, this is one of the reasons why I decided not to sue you after you published your lies about me in your book, Un Enfant est mort, and this is also why I didn’t even write to you before. I simply didn’t want to waste my time with you, and I didn’t want any contact. However, I could not avoid meeting you again because of that stupid trial of yours against Philippe Karsenty, meant to silence all the critics.

It may sound silly to you, but as a journalist I feel personally insulted by your behavior because it is a disgrace for our profession. As journalists we have the duty to find out the truth and tell it. We are not part of any campaign. We are eyewitnesses and we tell our audience what we have seen, what we heard, and what we found out. We ask critical questions and we insist on getting answers. We act according to our best belief — or at least we should. And when we get criticised, when people question our work, when they have doubts and even when they attack us in an unfair way, we have to deal with that by giving more and better and more convincing answers, by presenting more facts. And if we don’t take them seriously because their reaction seems to us to be completely unjustified, we just raise an eyebrow and let them do what they think they must do because this is the freedom of expression, freedom of speech, the essence of democracy.

This is what I did when I read what you wrote about me in your book: let him talk, let him write. If you can’t stand the heat, don’t work in the kitchen. But of course there is also criticism that can’t be ignored, that needs to be dealt with, because it presents new aspects and questions we might have overlooked. After all, we can’t be sure that we don’t make mistakes. It may happen that we tell lies because we believe them; this is not a problem as long as we are honest enough to admit mistakes and to correct them.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a major problem for many journalists. For you it is obviously impossible.

The tragic legacy of lethal journalism - The Al-Dura affair

Richard A. Landes..
Times of Israel..
14 January '13..

The French have a saying for the idea of a public secret, un secret de Polichinelle dans le tirroir – a humiliating fact still hidden in the drawer that will eventually come out, like an unwanted pregnancy. And France has one of those secrets, but rather than a life, this particular one gives birth to hatred, vengeance, and death. The drawer rattled recently when Mohamed Merah, native-born of Algerian parents, killed seven people, including three Jewish children in cold blood (he filmed himself), to avenge the way “the same Jews” kill his “Muslim brothers and sisters in Palestine.” And many in the French Muslim community considered him a hero, imitating rather than drawing back in horror from his violence. The prognosis for a civil society with such an “enmity movement” in its midst is not encouraging.

And the secret in the drawer is the colossal failure of the French media in the case of Muhammad al-Dura from its original occurrence in 2000 to this very day. Al-Dura was the 12-year old boy whose alleged death from Israeli bullets in his father’s arms shocked the world and became the emblem of the Oslo Intifada, an image, it turns out, as false as it was powerful. So, for many good reasons, the French, indeed every civic-minded citizen of the global community, should pay attention to what is happening today in France’s Court of Appeals in Paris.

For the sixth time in as many years, the courts will hear accusations by France2 against citizen Philippe Karsenty for accusing them of having run “staged” footage as news in the case of Muhammad al-Dura. To his devotees, “le petit Mohamed,” as he’s known in France, is “martyr of the world” because, thanks to France2, “the whole world saw” him shot dead, the “target of fire from the Israeli position,” dying in his father’s arms. Except that no one saw him die on film, much less in his father’s arms. On the contrary the overwhelming evidence suggests that it was a scene staged by France2’s cameraman, Talal abu Rahmah, which Charles “Scoop” Enderlin, unknowingly or not, turned into sensational news.

Pierre Rehov - An Open Letter to a Palestinian Propagandist

Pierre Rehov..
frontpagemag.com..
16 May '12..

Editor’s note: The following is an open letter to French journalist Charles Enderlin who helped publicize the infamous and discredited video of the supposed shooting death of Palestinian Muhammad al-Durrah, which fanned the flames of the Second Intifada against Israel. The author of this letter, Pierre Rehov, is a French filmmaker and novelist who, along with French journalist Philippe Karsenty, was at the fore of the effort to debunk the al-Durrah video.

Charles,

In our previous discussions we had taken the habit of addressing each other in an informal way, so I will not adopt a pseudo-official tone to speak to you publicly.

The open letter you have published against Philippe Karsenty has put me in such a rage after years of silence on this matter, I have to intervene or to speak in a familiar way, to add “my two cents.”

The reasons for this anger? The underlying bad faith in each of your sentences makes me feel ashamed for the special correspondent I used to respect … once upon a time.

You probably already know I was the very first, with the support of the Bn’ai Brith, to be revolted against the deadly false report that your TV channel and yourself released in September 2000. My disbelief in the face of such images, the certainty that there was rigging, manipulation, or at best, misinterpretation of facts led me at the time to involve myself body and soul into the conflict and, without you, and the phony images of your activist cameraman, I would probably not have embarked on this career of independent documentary filmmaker, which launched me in your line of work. But quite obviously not on the same track.

The Premiere of FrontPage Close-Up: Jamie Glazov interviews Philippe Karsenty

Jamie Glazov
frontpagemag.com
09 December '10

Welcome to the premiere of FrontPage Close-Up with Jamie Glazov, a new video series of provocative interviews with the leading thinkers and newsmakers of our time. Our first interview is with a hero of our modern era — Philippe Karsenty, the French media analyst who exposed the Mohammed Al-Dura Fraud, which involved France 2, a French television network, broadcasting staged footage of Israeli soldiers allegedly killing a 12-year old Palestinian, Mohammed al-Dura, during a gun battle in Gaza in 2000. See Part 1 of the interview below:



(Join us for Part II of FrontPage Close-Up’s Karsenty interview, "The Mohammed Al-Dura Fraud Exposed".)


If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

A Child Is Not Dead: Philippe Karsenty and the Al Dura Hoax

Mark Tapson
pajamasmedia.com
24 November '10

On September 30, 2000, Charles Enderlin, the Israel bureau chief of the France 2 television network, received an urgent call from his cameraman. It was the beginning of the second Palestinian intifada, and Talal Abu Rahma claimed to be filming a firefight between Palestinian protesters and Israeli forces at the Netzarim junction in the Gaza strip. He sent Enderlin footage of a panicked young boy caught and killed in the crossfire as his father tried in vain to protect him from Israeli troops, whom Rahma accused of purposely targeting the defenseless pair. Enderlin added a voiceover grimly narrating the boy’s death and hurried the footage to France 2.

The disturbing video circled the world faster than you can say “blood libel” and aroused international condemnation of Israel. Images of the atrocity immediately achieved iconic status as confirmation of Israeli brutality and Palestinian victimhood. It inflamed the intifada, which left thousands dead. Bin Laden even referred to the boy’s death in a taped warning to America, and the now-familiar image of the al Duras under fire appeared in the background of the videotaped beheading of Jewish-American journalist Daniel Pearl. Streets, parks, youth camps, and public buildings have been named in Mohammed al Dura’s honor. His image adorns stamps and monuments.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

"The France Two news report is a blood libel. It's a hoax. Fabrication. And that's it."

CAMERA/Snapshots
15 November '10

The image of a young Palestinian boy, Mohammed Al Dura, hiding behind his father during a gunfight in Gaza in 2000 helped generate several years' worth of violence during the Second Intifada. The boy's alleged death at the hands of Israeli soldiers in October 2000, confirmed what many extremists wanted everyone to believe -- that Israel, the Jewish state, was a monstrous nation. In light of this image, anything that happened to Israelis during the ensuing years seemed understandable because well, they killed that little boy, what do they expect?

The image - and the story it told - was, in the words of Nidra Poller, a "lethal narrative."

It took a while, but because of the work of Phillipe Karsenty, people have come to understand that the image, initially broadcast by France 2 Television, was a fake. It had to be. The little boy who was allegedly struck by numerous bullets, did not bleed. Neither did his father. There was no blood at the scene after they were taken away. A close inspection of the video reveals Al Dura lifting his arm up to see events unfold -- after he was allegedly killed.

By repeatedly raising questions about the footage, Karsenty convinced most reasonable people that indeed, the footage was fake. He did not purport to know what actually happened to Al Dura, but merely demonstrated that the 50 seconds of video shown throughout the world by France 2 during the early days of the Second Intifada was not to be believed.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Hero of Our Time

David Solway
frontpagemag.org
21 October '10

In 1839, the Russian novelist Mikhail Lermontov published A Hero of our Time, the tale of a melancholy romantic by the name of Grigory Pechorin. In the preface to the book, Lermontov explains that his protagonist is “a portrait, but not of one man. It is a portrait built up of our own generation’s vices.” Pechorin is presented as a self-indulgent cynic, prone to bouts of dejection, world-weariness and pre-Existential nihilism. “What do I expect from the future?” he asks, and replies, “nothing at all.”

It was my great privilege to meet recently another kind of “hero of our time,” one who has nothing in common with Pechorin with whom he differs in two crucial ways. To begin with, he most certainly is not a representative figure of our pusillanimous epoch but a singular presence, very much in the courageous mold of Geert Wilders, who holds the era to account. And secondly, there is nothing of the cynic about him; on the contrary, he is a man notable for his sense of justice, crusading energy, and his belief in the eventual triumph of the truth—a man who expects everything from the future.

I’m speaking of Philippe Karsenty, who delivered a talk in Montreal on October 13 of this year dealing with the infamous Mohammad al-Dura hoax perpetrated by France 2 TV. Karsenty, deputy mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine and director of the Paris-based analysis firm Media-Ratings, has become justly celebrated as the man who single-handedly defied the entire French media, political establishment and intellectual synod which closed ranks to defend the official version of what happened on September 30, 2000 at the Netzarim junction in Gaza. The episode and its aftermath are by this time widely known, but a brief recapitulation would not be out of place.

(Read full story)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Middle East Reporting: The Liars Are Still Active

Philippe Karsenty
Hudson New York
14 October '10

European politicians want to force Israel to make concessions to its enemies, so they need to demonize Israel. European media outlets have therefore constructed a narrative in support of these politicians' agenda; and any facts not in keeping with it are ignored.

In the United States there are media-monitoring groups such as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting, but organizations like this would not work in France.

(Pajamasmedia Richard Landes examines the evidence in the Al Dura case
 and other examples of "Pallywood" journalism)


Why? Because in France, Jews would not be trusted to monitor news about the Middle East: they would be considered biased. In France, monitoring work on the Middle East done by a Jew would be treated as irrelevant. So I created Media-Ratings in France to monitor the press – and it is treated as irrelevant.

In 2002, when I understood, thanks to Israeli and American researchers, that the Mohammed al Dura news report – the image of the 12-year-old Palestinian boy huddling against his father, who were said to have been shot by Israelis -- was a hoax, I tried to raise awareness about it, but no one would listen. There is no blood anywhere in the footage after the alleged shooting; a forensic investigation of the bullet holes showed they could not have come from the Israeli position, and only witness was the Palestinian cameraman who shot the footage, the most crucial part of which, the shooting itself, is still missing.

People told me: "We don't listen to Holocaust deniers, so we won't listen to you."

The French public TV station which was responsible for creating and airing the Al Dura hoax would not engage in any debate about their news report.

Consequently, I had to find a proper way to participate in the debate, and enter the stage by creating a watchdog organization, which would monitor all media outlets on all topics.

This is why and how, in 2004, Media-Ratings was created.

We were very careful not to deal with Israeli topics, ignoring the solicitations of some of our readers.

Very quickly, I received some invitations to appear on TV in France to critique the media.

As soon as it was established, we received coverage in the mainstream media.

Six months after our creation, I was "part of the club."

(Read full story)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Meet the Man Who Exposed the Al-Dura Hoax

An interview with Philippe Karsenty.


Brendan Bernhard
pajamasmedia.com
10 August '10

Energetic tired determined intelligent harried impatient boyish argumentative charming brusque — those are a few adjectives that come to mind as one attempts to describe Philippe Karsenty, the tireless talking thorn who has embedded himself in the side of France’s government-owned television channel, France 2, and even more firmly between the ribs of its revered Franco-Israeli Jerusalem correspondent, Charles Enderlin, the reporter responsible for having perpetrated what is now often referred to as the “Al-Dura hoax.”

It all began almost ten years ago — on September 30, 2000, when France 2 ran a 50-second tape of what appeared to be the death by Israeli fire in Gaza of Mohammed al-Dura, a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, while he cowered in the arms of his father – a contemporary pietá for the Arab world. Enderlin, who had not been present at the scene, and whose editors had edited the tape from the roughly six minutes of footage sent to them by the channel’s Palestinian camera man (who had himself cut it down from 27 minutes of tape), plainly stated in his voiceover that the boy had been intentionally shot by Israeli soldiers and that he had died.



Initially accepted as fact, the report is now widely disbelieved, and no one can take greater credit for exposing and publicizing France 2’s fabrication than Karsenty.

“Do you know what is the bottom line of all this?” he told me recently. “It is the first blood libel of our 21st century, and it’s the beginning of the Israel-bashing of our 21st century, the beginning of the international jihad which started before 9/11. It [happened] a year before 9/11, and it [was] used by bin Laden to incite 9/11. So it’s really the starting point of the international jihad against the Western world.”

Karsenty was speaking in a booth of “Le Train Bleu,” a grandly ornate 19th century restaurant above the Gare de Lyon train station in Paris, from where he would shortly leave for Lausanne, Switzerland, to deliver a lecture. At 44 years of age, the former stockbroker, now an elected official in the Neuilly-sur-Seine district of Paris, has the tanned, gleaming epidermis of the lens-ready public figure. His eyes are a limpid brown, his lips well-shaped, and he is quick to flash a politician’s smile when faced with a camera.

(Read full story)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

More Support for Those Calling Al Dura Broadcast a Hoax

Ricki Hollander
CAMERA
15 June '10

Posted before Shabbat

On April 24, 2008, just a few weeks before the appeals court was to deliver its judgement on whether internet media monitor Philippe Karsenty was guilty of defaming France 2 (see "France 2 vs. Philippe Karsenty: The Appeal"), the French television pay channel, Canal+, broadcast a documentary defending Charles Enderlin/France 2 and impugning Philippe Karsenty. Broadcast on its weekly investigative program, Jeudi Investigation and entitled "Rumeurs, intox: les nouvelles guerres de l'info" ("Rumors, Brainwashing: The New Information Wars"), filmmaker Stéphane Malterre equated Philippe Karsenty's dissection of the France 2 broadcast and the conclusion that it was staged with the allegations of U.S. "truthers"—who argue that the 9/11 attack in New York was an "inside job" carried out by the U.S. government against its own citizens — and those of anti-Semites who accuse Zionists and Jews of being behind the 9/11 attack. The documentary accused Karsenty of manipulating information to support the "radical and extremist" perspective that the broadcast of Mohammed Al Dura's death on France 2 was staged.

Karsenty sued for defamation, and on June 10, 2010, Canal+ and the film production company were found guilty of slandering Karsenty. The judges concluded that filmmaker Stephane Malterre had ignored relevant evidence about the Al Dura hoax and demonstrated a lack of objectivity in sullying Karsenty's reputation.

This is another judicial win for Karsenty and the viewpoint that the footage of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy purportedly killed by Israelis was a media hoax.

For more details on the Al Dura affair, see "Mohammed Al Dura: Anatomy of a French Media Scandal" or "Timeline of the Al Dura Affair: A French Media Scandal"

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

.
.

Fighting the Blood Libels Made Against Israel

Stephanie L. Freid
Pajamasmedia.com
05 March '10

You’d think that fighting an uphill battle would get exhausting after a few years. But from all indications, al-Dura hoax theorist and media analyst Philippe Karsenty shows no signs of fatigue.

Karsenty came to public attention when he was sued for libel by France 2 after accusing the network of broadcasting staged footage of Mohammed al-Dura’s shooting death during a gun fight in Gaza in 2000. France 2 originally won the case, but the judgment was overturned by a Paris court in May 2008.

One would assume that would be sufficient victory needed to lay it all to rest. But a decade after al-Dura, an intrepid Karsenty insists the fight to clear Israel’s name is far from over.



Visiting Israel in February on yet another tireless round of campaigning, he was riding the high of a favorable Haaretz op-ed piece penned in January by military analyst Reuven Pedatzur. Pedatzur praised Karsenty’s relentless al-Dura investigations and accused Israel’s government of neglect. “Mohammed al-Dura — Israel’s greatest PR failure,” the title railed.

Karsenty agrees with the sentiment and his confidence is bolstered by support also flowing forth from Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick.

Israel’s foreign ministry has taken a “‘let’s forget about this entire affair — we don’t care’ attitude instead of fighting for the truth,” Karsenty states as we sit together in the lobby of Tel Aviv’s David Intercontinental Hotel. “But the affair and its implications are far from over.”

Because as he continues traveling the world and airing al-Dura footage clips that he says prove the shooting was staged, the analyst arrived in Israel to be met with what he describes as complacent and patronizing apathy.

(Read full article)
.

Enderlin hits bottom, keeps digging

Richard Landes
Augean Stables
02 February '10
Posted before Shabbat

Enderlin has responded to an article by Reuven Pedatzur which attacked his coverage of the Al Durah story. It’s not online, but here’s a PDF of the “deadwood” version (HT/Barry Nimat) and below a transcript (HT/CAMERA)

Regarding “Mohammed is not dead,” January 24, by Reuven Pedatzur

The claim that there was not a drop of blood at the scene [where Mohammed al-Dura allegedly was killed in 2000] is erroneous. Blood is clearly visible in the videos, and is mentioned in the reports prepared by the hospital that treated Jamal al-Dura, Mohammed’s father.

This is most interesting phrasing. Blood is clearly not visible in the videos. There’s a vague red spot where the boy was allegedly shot in the stomach, but that could (and probably is) a red rag that was previously on his thigh where he was allegedly first hit, and which “blood” in the later scene has miraculously vanished. For a gaping stomach wound from which the boy allegedly bled to death, the absence of blood at the scene is quite striking… even necessitating the adding of blood the next day. (All this evidence is discussed here.)

(Read full response)
.

Pedatzur on Israel's Al-Dura Blunder

TS
CAMERA/Snapshots
24 January '10

Reuven Pedatzur revisits the Mohammed Al Dura case today in Ha'aretz, and slams the Israeli Foreign Ministry for failing to challenge the widely reported version of events. He reminds readers of the holes in France 2's story:

The cameraman's testimony is full of contradictions. He says that "the soldiers shot the two in cold blood for 45 minutes." However, if the IDF soldiers wanted to hit Mohammed and his father in "cold blood" they could have killed them in less than a minute. Regarding the question of how many bullets were fired toward the two, Abu Rahma said "at least 400." The wall at the site of the incident clearly shows eight holes.

(Read full post)
.